Hi Stephen,
At 12:39 PM 18-12-2024, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I updated this a bit based on recent discussions.
I'll comment on draft-farrell-errata-02.
There is a sentence in Section 1 which states that: "the current
system is also terrible at making changes visible to RFC
readers". There was a project to include the errata in a RFC, e.g.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/inline-errata/rfc9225.html
The following is stated in Section 2: "MUST ensure that control over
the content of RFCs remains with the community and is never given to
the RPC or IETF LLC". The draft which you submitted has a notice
which says: "IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document
authors". I would expect the author to have some control over the
content which he/she wrote instead of the RFC or the IETF LLC taking
upon itself to make unilateral changes to the document.
Section 3 argues for a possible new system. I ran the following one-liner:
jq -r '.[] |select (.verifier_name == null)|.["doc-id"]' errata.json
There were 979 reports which were pending. My first thought is
whether it would be worth spending money on a new system. I did not
ask that question though. Section 3 also argues for some form of
voting. I doubt that it would work to my advantage as I don't have a
fan club. :-)
It may be possible for a Stream to run its own system, e.g. something
along the lines which you outlined, especially if that Stream has
access to funding.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
